7 ms·

Again,people often make this sound simpler than it actually is. I don't like paying taxes,nobody does. I'm also not stupid enough to deny that even though my in

Again,people often make this sound simpler than it actually is. I don't like paying taxes,nobody does. I'm also not stupid enough to deny that even though my income is higher than national average,I'm most likely getting more in return than I contribute. I'm also strongly against any tiered tax model,where you pay more if you earn more.There are some freeriders out there but the majority did put extreme amounts of energy to get to the point where they can make lots of money and that can't be said about everyone. If extra money to be raised from additional taxes,it shouldn't go towards F-35s, carrier ships or some other shit but rather towards education, some element of risk acceptance towards encouraging people to start business,create and etc. However, until we continue having people who vote based on show values rather than merit and not ensuring the elected once doing what promises, there's no chances of changing any of this.

bigred100 7y ago
Don’t really buy this in the middle argument. “It’s the budget committee’s fault that I dodge taxes.” The way you change the way the national budget is allocated is changing your voting habits and organizing with people who feel similarly, not gaming the tax system until you feel that it’s suitable
- nikanj 7y ago
  Regardless of the industry, the anti-subsidy side has a bunch of stressed-out volunteers. The pro-subsidy side has a sizable budget, and a large team of paid professionals doing lobbying.
chongli 7y ago
There are some freeriders out there but the majority did put extreme amounts of energy to get to the point where they can make lots of money and that can't be said about everyone. Did Jeff Bezos put in a million times as much effort as a typical minimum wage worker? The reason why it's fair to make Jeff pay way more taxes than the average person is because he benefits way more from public services than the average person. Where would Amazon be without public roads, electricity, or water services? You can perform this exercise with any big company. The idea that an entrepreneur builds a billion dollar business entirely on their own and so they deserve all of the wealth produced is the most pernicious idea in our societies today. Unfortunately, as the Monopoly study showed [1], this idea may be universal to humans who obtain an advantage. [1] https://tedsummaries.com/2014/09/05/paul-piff-does-money-make-you-mean/ https://tedsummaries.com/2014/09/05/paul-piff-does-money-mak...
- mrep 7y ago
  > Did Jeff Bezos put in a million times as much effort as a typical minimum wage worker? No, but he did make a million times more risky bet than the typical minimum wage worker. He quit a lucrative job at a financial company to start a company where he owned 100% of nothing and he has held onto that stock for 23 years. Common financial wisdom is to diversify your investments but instead, he took a massive pay decrease to start a company in the hopes that the stock would one day pay off, then held onto the stock of his company and led it to the massive valuation it currently has. He could have cashed out at any time but he didn't because our system rewards those who take risks/keep investing. If you massively taxed outsized earnings and/or capped it, he probably would have never even started the company because why would you take the extreme risk of doing a startup when most of them fail? He probably would have just stayed at the financial company and if he did do the startup, then he probably would have cashed out when the taxes/cap got too large and retired instead of working to continuously increase the company's value which increases everyone's standard of living.
  - perfmode 7y ago
    > have never even started the company because why would you take the extreme risk of doing a startup when most of them fail? He “To change the world”
  - soVeryTired 7y ago
    > No, but he did make a million times more risky bet than the typical minimum wage worker. He took a risk in absolute monetary terms perhaps, but not risk in terms of consequence. Having spent a few years being relatively high up in DE Shaw, the worst that might have happened to him if his business failed is that he'd move to a smaller house. Contrast that situation with someone who might struggle to make rent if their business failed, and tell me who's really taking the bigger risk.
    - mrep 7y ago
      How would Jeff bezos be in a better situation than some small business owner if both companies failed?
adamredwoods 7y ago
I feel at some point tax payers should be allowed to select where their money goes, in a broad sense (military, education, arts, infrastructure), but allowing a portion to go a mixed-use fund for government flexibility.
- anoncake 7y ago
  > I feel at some point tax payers should be allowed to select where their money goes They can, by voting.
  - adamredwoods 7y ago
    I feel there is a disconnect between voting for representation and where money is allocated. In the US, voting does not guarantee representation, as losing votes are essentially useless.
    - anoncake 7y ago
      True. But that's a bigger issue than "just" some money being misallocated. Letting taxpayers decide individually where "their" money goes also smells like census suffrage.
snarfy 7y ago
> but the majority did put extreme amounts of energy to get to the point where they can make lots of money and that can't be said about everyone. Did their children also? Then why do they inherit it? I'm all for a 100% estate tax. You shouldn't be able to take it with you. Society doesn't need dynasties. Their children were raised with the benefit of extreme wealth with all of the advantages it brings. They shouldn't also get to keep it.
- antidesitter 7y ago
  Because in a free society you can donate your property to whomever you please.
  - AngryData 7y ago
    So in a free society, power should be given out according to the whims of the already powerful? Rather than earned of their own merits and general public accord?
    - DoreenMichele 7y ago
      An actual free society does its best to balance different things, like individual rights versus the good of the whole. When done well, protecting individual rights enhances the good of the whole. The reality is that a 100% estate tax mostly will hurt the middle and lower classes. The ultra rich will get with their lawyers, set up trust funds while they yet draw breath and find other loopholes. Same as it ever was. And while wealth inequality is a genuine issue, there's much worse things that grow out of trying to prevent people from being wealthy at all. It's absolutely the wrong goal. The goal should be to not exclude people from the benefits of living in a wealthy, developed nation. It shouldn't be trying to arbitrarily and spitefully rob the rich.
    - antidesitter 7y ago
      > So in a free society, power should be given out according to the whims of the already powerful? It depends on what you mean by “power”. If by “power” you mean money then the answer is yes, if it’s their money. The same applies for the not-so-“powerful”.
conanbatt 7y ago
> I'm also not stupid enough to deny that even though my income is higher than national average,I'm most likely getting more in return than I contribute. But we have also proven that men have a great interest in exaggerating the relative value of the services they render one another. I cannot indeed, see any other limit to these claims than the free acceptance or free refusal of those to whom these services are offered.
ruytlm 7y ago
> I don't like paying taxes,nobody does. I like paying taxes. I have absolutely no problem with the idea that if I (and others) contribute from what we earn, that we get collective benefits, such as education, infrastructure, and healthcare, which in turn improve our society. I also have no problem with tax increases, as I am well aware that the overall benefit I receive from increased contribution greatly outweighs having that money in my bank account. The money I pay in taxes contributes to a better educated society, who are more aware of the challenges we face together, and more capable of solving them. The money I pay in taxes builds public transport, helping people move around, and removing the burden on our roads. It repairs those roads, so they are safer. Where I live, the money I pay in taxes provides healthcare, so people who are ill or injured can be treated without going into life-ruining debt. I am happy to pay taxes, because I believe a country where the population on the whole are smarter, safer, and healthier, and infrastructure is modern and maintained, is better than one in which I'd have a bit more money, but be surrounded by people who are less educated, sick, and in crippling debt, with crumbling infrastructure.
- antidesitter 7y ago
  > I also have no problem with tax increases, as I am well aware that the overall benefit I receive from increased contribution greatly outweighs having that money in my bank account. Why don’t you just write a bigger cheque to your tax collector, then?
  - AngryData 7y ago
    Because collective benefits don't work without the collective. Might as well say "If you want roads why don't you just build or pay for them yourself?" "If you want electricity, just build and operate your own power plant" You can do a whole hell of a lot more with 100 people working together than with 100 individuals acting of their own isolated accords.
    - antidesitter 7y ago
      But you just said “the overall benefit I receive from increased contribution greatly outweighs having that money in my bank account”. The marginal utility to the government of your cheque only decreases if more people do the same.

bigred100 7y ago

Don’t really buy this in the middle argument. “It’s the budget committee’s fault that I dodge taxes.” The way you change the way the national budget is allocated is changing your voting habits and organizing with people who feel similarly, not gaming the tax system until you feel that it’s suitable

nikanj 7y ago
Regardless of the industry, the anti-subsidy side has a bunch of stressed-out volunteers. The pro-subsidy side has a sizable budget, and a large team of paid professionals doing lobbying.

chongli 7y ago

There are some freeriders out there but the majority did put extreme amounts of energy to get to the point where they can make lots of money and that can't be said about everyone. Did Jeff Bezos put in a million times as much effort as a typical minimum wage worker? The reason why it's fair to make Jeff pay way more taxes than the average person is because he benefits way more from public services than the average person. Where would Amazon be without public roads, electricity, or water services? You can perform this exercise with any big company. The idea that an entrepreneur builds a billion dollar business entirely on their own and so they deserve all of the wealth produced is the most pernicious idea in our societies today. Unfortunately, as the Monopoly study showed [1], this idea may be universal to humans who obtain an advantage. [1] https://tedsummaries.com/2014/09/05/paul-piff-does-money-make-you-mean/ https://tedsummaries.com/2014/09/05/paul-piff-does-money-mak...

mrep 7y ago
> Did Jeff Bezos put in a million times as much effort as a typical minimum wage worker? No, but he did make a million times more risky bet than the typical minimum wage worker. He quit a lucrative job at a financial company to start a company where he owned 100% of nothing and he has held onto that stock for 23 years. Common financial wisdom is to diversify your investments but instead, he took a massive pay decrease to start a company in the hopes that the stock would one day pay off, then held onto the stock of his company and led it to the massive valuation it currently has. He could have cashed out at any time but he didn't because our system rewards those who take risks/keep investing. If you massively taxed outsized earnings and/or capped it, he probably would have never even started the company because why would you take the extreme risk of doing a startup when most of them fail? He probably would have just stayed at the financial company and if he did do the startup, then he probably would have cashed out when the taxes/cap got too large and retired instead of working to continuously increase the company's value which increases everyone's standard of living.
- perfmode 7y ago
  > have never even started the company because why would you take the extreme risk of doing a startup when most of them fail? He “To change the world”
- soVeryTired 7y ago
  > No, but he did make a million times more risky bet than the typical minimum wage worker. He took a risk in absolute monetary terms perhaps, but not risk in terms of consequence. Having spent a few years being relatively high up in DE Shaw, the worst that might have happened to him if his business failed is that he'd move to a smaller house. Contrast that situation with someone who might struggle to make rent if their business failed, and tell me who's really taking the bigger risk.
  - mrep 7y ago
    How would Jeff bezos be in a better situation than some small business owner if both companies failed?

adamredwoods 7y ago

I feel at some point tax payers should be allowed to select where their money goes, in a broad sense (military, education, arts, infrastructure), but allowing a portion to go a mixed-use fund for government flexibility.

anoncake 7y ago
> I feel at some point tax payers should be allowed to select where their money goes They can, by voting.
- adamredwoods 7y ago
  I feel there is a disconnect between voting for representation and where money is allocated. In the US, voting does not guarantee representation, as losing votes are essentially useless.
  - anoncake 7y ago
    True. But that's a bigger issue than "just" some money being misallocated. Letting taxpayers decide individually where "their" money goes also smells like census suffrage.

snarfy 7y ago

> but the majority did put extreme amounts of energy to get to the point where they can make lots of money and that can't be said about everyone. Did their children also? Then why do they inherit it? I'm all for a 100% estate tax. You shouldn't be able to take it with you. Society doesn't need dynasties. Their children were raised with the benefit of extreme wealth with all of the advantages it brings. They shouldn't also get to keep it.

antidesitter 7y ago
Because in a free society you can donate your property to whomever you please.
- AngryData 7y ago
  So in a free society, power should be given out according to the whims of the already powerful? Rather than earned of their own merits and general public accord?
  - DoreenMichele 7y ago
    An actual free society does its best to balance different things, like individual rights versus the good of the whole. When done well, protecting individual rights enhances the good of the whole. The reality is that a 100% estate tax mostly will hurt the middle and lower classes. The ultra rich will get with their lawyers, set up trust funds while they yet draw breath and find other loopholes. Same as it ever was. And while wealth inequality is a genuine issue, there's much worse things that grow out of trying to prevent people from being wealthy at all. It's absolutely the wrong goal. The goal should be to not exclude people from the benefits of living in a wealthy, developed nation. It shouldn't be trying to arbitrarily and spitefully rob the rich.
  - antidesitter 7y ago
    > So in a free society, power should be given out according to the whims of the already powerful? It depends on what you mean by “power”. If by “power” you mean money then the answer is yes, if it’s their money. The same applies for the not-so-“powerful”.

conanbatt 7y ago

> I'm also not stupid enough to deny that even though my income is higher than national average,I'm most likely getting more in return than I contribute. But we have also proven that men have a great interest in exaggerating the relative value of the services they render one another. I cannot indeed, see any other limit to these claims than the free acceptance or free refusal of those to whom these services are offered.

ruytlm 7y ago

> I don't like paying taxes,nobody does. I like paying taxes. I have absolutely no problem with the idea that if I (and others) contribute from what we earn, that we get collective benefits, such as education, infrastructure, and healthcare, which in turn improve our society. I also have no problem with tax increases, as I am well aware that the overall benefit I receive from increased contribution greatly outweighs having that money in my bank account. The money I pay in taxes contributes to a better educated society, who are more aware of the challenges we face together, and more capable of solving them. The money I pay in taxes builds public transport, helping people move around, and removing the burden on our roads. It repairs those roads, so they are safer. Where I live, the money I pay in taxes provides healthcare, so people who are ill or injured can be treated without going into life-ruining debt. I am happy to pay taxes, because I believe a country where the population on the whole are smarter, safer, and healthier, and infrastructure is modern and maintained, is better than one in which I'd have a bit more money, but be surrounded by people who are less educated, sick, and in crippling debt, with crumbling infrastructure.

antidesitter 7y ago
> I also have no problem with tax increases, as I am well aware that the overall benefit I receive from increased contribution greatly outweighs having that money in my bank account. Why don’t you just write a bigger cheque to your tax collector, then?
- AngryData 7y ago
  Because collective benefits don't work without the collective. Might as well say "If you want roads why don't you just build or pay for them yourself?" "If you want electricity, just build and operate your own power plant" You can do a whole hell of a lot more with 100 people working together than with 100 individuals acting of their own isolated accords.
  - antidesitter 7y ago
    But you just said “the overall benefit I receive from increased contribution greatly outweighs having that money in my bank account”. The marginal utility to the government of your cheque only decreases if more people do the same.